Though it is a topic that I know we will explore later in the course, the prevalence of women in the Harvey and Sernett chapters were especially striking to me this week. From black women who held prominent positions in African-American churches, to apathetic, well meaning, or even downright malicious white women, women continued to make their niches in the religious world, even despite the patriarchal tendencies of both the surrounding social and religious atmospheres.Though it is a topic that I know we will explore later in the course, the prevalence of women in the Harvey and Sernett chapters were especially striking to me this week. From black women who held prominent positions in African-American churches, to apathetic, well meaning, or even downright malicious white women, women continued to make their niches in the religious world, even despite the patriarchal tendencies of both the surrounding social and religious atmospheres.

In the Harvey reading, there was a distinct section devoted to the efforts of black women in the AME Church to gain leadership positions within the church. Though women like Jarena Lee, Julia Foote, and Amanda Smith felt “the call to preach the gospel” (Harvey 43), they were not allowed to do anything more than “exhort” their faith, rather than become ordained ministers. Despite being put down time and time again for not being educated enough, or being too spirited in their preachings, the women of the AME Church managed to challenge the ideals of the faith. It is, in my opinion, rather hypocritical that the male leaders of the church would base their church on “education, propriety, respectability, and decorum” (Harvey 43), and thus exclude women from ministry, while their oppressors would likely use the same language to keep black men from taking on leadership positions in white churches.

One of the most striking examples of women in the church was the primary source from Sister Kelly, an ex-slave. To hear how she realized her own faith was heart-warming as well as eye-opening, as her account describes the almost entirely different experiences slave women had, as well as female role models that were present in Kelly’s life. Kelly begins with the white woman who owned her for a time. Though she describes her as “the best white woman that ever broke bread”(Sernett 70), she also adds that “that wasn’t much, ’cause they all hated the po’ nigger” (Sernett 70). Extrapolating from this, though one might expect some sympathy from white women compared to white men, it seems that white women were equally cruel in their treatment of black people, especially slaves. A glimpse into the matriarchs of Kelly’s life are also found in her account; she briefly mentions an “Aunt July”, who affirms her religious inclinations and sends Sister Kelly onto the path of a believer.

Apart from these examples, there are few examples of women during this time with any real agency. Henry Bibb mentions a “poor white girl, who offered to teach a Sabbath School for the slaves” (Sernett 76), and whose school was quickly shut down, showing a possible attempt to aid slaves in religion and literacy. The women mentioned in future passages are little more than symbols– a girl is the impetus to turn Bibb to turn to some superstitious remedies; Nat Turner recollects the murder of several women without remorse; Frederick Douglass laments the whippings of women and uses these as examples of the cruelty of slaveowners.

An excellent resource which I found invaluable in my research of the intersectionality of gender, race, and religion was: A TRIPLE-TWINED RE-APPROPRIATION: WOMANIST THEOLOGY AND GENDERED-RACIAL PROTEST IN THE WRITINGS OF JARENA LEE, FRANCES E.W. HARPER, AND HARRIET JACOBS.

I think the caps really convey the urgency of the article, so I’m keeping them.

Although this is by no means a new correlation, I think that it is important to bring up once more. Last week, we got to discuss the rather madding views of Jupiter Hammon. His views on slavery rested on this key concept; “obey thy master”, or your experience as a slave will be ten times worse. As we discussed, a part of this mantra stems from how were religion (their work was distributed to the masses via white slave owners.) Keeping this concept in mind, Douglas’s views as recorded in Sernett’s work really struck me. Again, we see the same platform being used, but the total opposite side of the scale. As cliché as it may seem practically in the case of slave experience and treatment, I do to a degree, believe that events and experiences are influenced greatly upon personal experience. Recall that Hammon grew up on the kinder side of slavery, as a result, he stands on the grounds that slaves owe their master’s obedience based on all that has been provided for them. In contrast, Douglas points the sickening hypocrisy that sees in slave owners on a daily bases, claiming that the same men who would preach love of God on Sunday, would also beat their slaves bloody that coming Monday. Another important thing that I took of, was how Douglas attempted to clarify his point in the concluding paragraphs. He goes on to state that his dislike of Christians only applies to slaveholders. Both Hammon and Douglas proclaimed themselves to be of the Christian faith, but manipulate scripture and belief to their own personal advantage. Further, take the infamous Tuner rebellion into account. This was more or less a planned slaughter to get back at white slave-owners. From the compilations that we had to read this week, I took away one focal point; cruelty breeds cruelty, and compassion works on the same platform. We define things by our personal experiences at the time. This does not mean this is the way things were 27/4. It is important in the issue of slavery and slave experience to not simply rely on generalized experiences and proclaim these grouped experieces were e v e r y o n e ‘ s reality.

Religion and the making of Nat Turner’s Virginia provides a new interpretation of the rise of evangelical Christianity in the early American South by reconstructing the complex, biracial history of the Baptist movement in southeastern Virginia. To me, this region and its religious history became a subject of intense national scrutiny in the wake of the 1831 revolt led by the enslaved preacher and prophet Nat Turner. By the time Virginia’s religious landscape had already been shaped by the conflict about the implications of evangelical faith for the evolving cluster of interrelated ideas about race, slavery, household, family, and patriarchy that constituted the state’s social order. For black Virginians, evangelical discourses of authority, community, and meaning provided the material for a wide variety of interpretations of Christianity’s social and spiritual message during the eras. The trend toward separation and segregation of black and religion in the antebellum period and had powerful, lasting effects on race relations and religious culture in America.

On particular section that caught my attention in this week’s reading was from Chapter Nine of Sernett’s book. It was written by Henry Bibb, who was an escaped slave. Henry wrote about how many slaves turned to a practice known as conjuration for religious fulfillment, rather than to the Catholic Church. He cited three or four incidents from his younger days, saying that he believed that conjuration made him powerful enough to do whatever he wanted and still avoid consequence. He found this to be false when he came back late one Monday and was whipped for his misbehavior. Not allowing this incident to dampen his belief that conjuration would make him invincible, he went to a different old slave who practiced conjuration. The slave told him to sprinkle a substance over his master’s hat and boots to stop him from ever abusing Bibb again. This method did not work either. He tried again to use conjuration after this, this time in a different situation. A conjurer told him a way to make any girl he wanted fall in love with him by scratching her with the bone of a frog. Bibb attempted to use this charm on a girl that he knew to be with another man, to no avail. Even after this third failure, Bibb simply went to a different conjurer. The fourth conjurer told him to obtain a lock of hair from the girl he desired and put it into his shoes in order to make someone fall in love with him. He tried this on a different girl, but yet again the conjuration does not work-or, rather, he never got a chance to test it because the girl would not give him a lock of her hair. His stubbornness and unflinching belief in conjuration, despite its many, many flaws-mainly the fact that it never actually worked for him-displays how desperate slaves were for anything at all that would give them even a little bit go hope.

The most emotion-inducing reading this week was the reading about Nat Turner. The account of the uprising was honestly rather difficult to read, mainly because of the unfeeling way the violence was described. Nat Turner clearly felt very strongly about his need to make a change, but the way he and his followers went about it is shocking. The chapter gave an account of the attack on a family, including an infant, and it was heart wrenching to read the cold detachment with which such horrible actions were described (Sernett 94).

In sharp contrast, Frederick Douglass’s chapter was filled with incredibly heartfelt words. He describes eloquently and passionately what the difference is between true Christianity and the religion of the slaveholders. He describes what he calls “horrible inconsistencies”, as the people in power around him display one thing when practicing religion, and an entirely different persona the rest of the time (Sernett 106). Douglass speaks of this two-sided existence as “the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels” (Sernett 106). It is incredible to read how fervently Douglass speaks of this difference between true religion, which he speaks of with devotion, and the hypocritical actions of the people around him.

The difference between these two accounts makes each even more unique. The chapter about Nat Turner is very stark, with little emotion save for the devotion felt throughout the entire account. The chapter about Frederick Douglass is quite emotional, and his sincere words make his point even more memorable.

In chapter 8, I see some ideas from Sister Kelly’s writings that the church I grew up in still believes today. One quote that stuck out to me was when she writes, “honey, right now, you young folks is blind, deaf and dumb to the knowledge of God’s name; that can’t last, you gonna change do you hear me? We can’t do no good unless we got God in our heart, and our heads, too.” This is something that I have heard reiterated over and over again. Older people always think that that younger people are too wordly and full of sin and do not know God. Later on, Sister Kelly goes on to claim that young people in general are just awful. I wonder what she would have to say if she saw today’s current generation.

I found this narrative very interesting. While reading this section, I continually thought about the book Something Must Be Done About Prince Edward County  by Kristen Green and I began comparing the two. In Something Must Be Done About Prince Edward County, community leaders went to extreme lengths to fight integration. These leaders went as far as shutting down the public schools in the area and creating all white private schools to avoid integration anywhere in Prince Edward county. This portion of that book came to mind while I was reading the story of how one church pastor began working with a slave owner to preach the “gospel” to slaves. This pastor would tell slaves that the Devil was giving them the urge to run away and that remaining obedient and loyal to their owner would keep them in God’s graces. The ending of this narrative stood out to me as well. Reading about how slaves praying and/or calling out to God was prohibited but dancing and playing music was allowed and tolerated peaked my interests. I am strongly considering doing some outside research about this topic.

Henry Bibb’s “Conjuration and Witchcraft” excerpt on Sernett’s African American Religious History contained information at the very beginning that put things into perspective for me. In the second paragraph, Bibb describes how masters encouraged their slaves to get drunk and fight each other on the Sabbath for the sole purpose of the master’s amusement. Aside from the fact that they were treated like circus animals, it shows how slaveholders view their servants as not having the capacity to fully grasp the set of beliefs that these people apparently hold so dear. The Sabbath plays such a crucial role in Christianity, yet the oppressed were deprived of participating in it. I would use this text to argue that plantation owners didn’t convert these people out of the “goodness” of their hearts. It was more of a control mechanism, hence the reason why slaves learning the bible was discouraged. Expecting a slave to understand or comply with Christianity at the time without knowing how to read the bible or be involved in the holiest day of the week is like expecting a college student to do well in class without the course textbook while never showing up to the classroom. That is why I believe these people began making creating their own rituals such as conjuration.

In the Peter Randolph selection, when it was mentioned that the Baptists were seen as mostly slaves and lower class whites, I was not surprised. I figured that Baptists would be seen as on the low of Christianity spectrum. But even the white Baptists would only allow the slaves a small section to sit in the church. Once again, it was not surprising but just unfortunate that the people on the lower class side of Christianity spectrum, where it was a majority of black people still had to be second rate for their white Baptist counterparts.

“The Gospel was so mixed with slavery, that the people could see no beauty in it, and feel no reverence for it” (64). This quote made me stop reading and take the time to go through what Randolph meant by this exactly.  I feel like this quote means that the people of Prince George county were so used to hearing the word of God and knowing how that might go against slavery that some put Christianity on the back burner and focused on doing whatever made them happy while the preacher was preaching.

Close to the end it is mentioned how if some slaves were to pray then they would get whipped by their master. It is confusing because some of them just wanted their slaves to be of the same religion as them and others wanted them to believe in God. But the thought of the slave praying for mercy or for the slave master to stop making them work might be why they were not allowed to pray in front of them. the slave master probably thought that it was offensive or that the slave prayed to be free.

Overall, this week’s readings moved me to tears in a way no other weeks have. Reading that these people were denied the right to take comfort in the one thing I think no one should ever have to ask access to have or practice- religion, really shook me. But what really got to me is the fact that these people still found the time to preach patience for life through spirituals, in a show of faith that most christians these days can barely think of.

However, one part of the reading got to me in a different way. Religion and Slave Insurrection awakened feelings of guilt within me. I found myself falling into the same type of thought patterns that the white people in those days must have had, that Nat Turner was a crazy fanatic that must have been ill. In some part, I feel like my thoughts were influenced by the manner in which Turner’s thoughts were interpreted and presented: by a white man. I think it is obvious in some parts that his hatred stops him from giving an unbiased account of Turner’s childhood and religious zeal. Because of this, I felt guilty for judging Turner, and then I felt guilty for feeling guilty over judging a murderer. How could I empathize with someone who murdered mothers and children? But along that same line of thought, how could I empathize with people who went along with, and dare I say, advocated, the owning and abuse of human beings? Even typing this right now makes me feel guilty for even attempting to empathize with either, and brings back feelings of confusion.